Garl B. Latham : commuter, planning, energy, marketing

The Grid and Gateway proposition

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:57:00 GMT

I don't set out to be negative (honestly!) and I've never wished to concentrate upon what I conclude may be wrong in the world of railroading while ignoring possible solutions. No matter how badly things may be going, it's not right or fair to continually pick on others if I'm unwilling to share a few of my own proposals in a public forum.

Regarding the design and implementation of new and restored passenger services, I have developed several ideas which revolve around a central proposition I believe to be the most logical and cost-effective way of reintroducing the concept of intercity train travel to our modern society.

I call this the Grid and Gateway system, mainly because the phrase is so descriptive - and because I've always enjoyed alliterations!

I began working on this plan during the waning days of the 20th century, first offering a basic outline to railway passenger supporters through a post on the All-Aboard electronic mailing list (now part of Yahoo! Groups) in the year 2000. An article entitled "Wordplay and Passenger Trains" appeared in the January 2001 edition of the Western Rail Passenger Review and was subsequently picked up by various advocacy organisations, including the Arizona Rail Passenger Association, the Southwest Railroad Historical Society and MobilityDallas.

Eventually, the National Association of Railroad Passengers embraced this general notion. With my permission, NARP adopted the phrase "Grid and Gateway" (occasionally hyphenated thusly: "grid-and-gateway") to use in conjunction with the release of their 40th anniversary "Vision for the Future" proposal in 2007. Groups such as the Kentucky Public Transportation Association and the North Carolina Alliance for Transportation Reform endorsed the scheme.

Unfortunately, my recommendation of a Grid and Gateway system has never really captured the public's imagination. Maybe it sounds too technical. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to re-brand the overall strategy, presuming a satisfactory marketing term could be developed. In the meantime, High Speed Rail and Higher Speed Rail (followed, naturally, by Almost High Speed Rail and Nearly Sort-of High Speed Rail) have commanded centre stage.

Oh, well. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other word would smell as sweet." I sincerely appreciate Shakespeare's genius, and would like to think my idea might retain some sort of "that dear perfection" by any other name.

I feel that might be the case. After all, I'm not necessarily original; I just know a bit about history and have been blessed with a (usually) reliable ability to accurately judge a good plan. Ofttimes, it is only a predisposition to be supportive of rail-based initiatives which undermines my objectivity!

The Grid and Gateway is simply a modern day adaptation of what once was - and what, with the proper support (both by the general public and our industry), could be once again. It also builds upon the work of the late Dr. Adrian Herzog of the United Rail Passenger Alliance. URPA's Route Matrix theory (another barely marketable designation!), based upon Dr. Herzog's brilliant work, is a classic example of the beauty of pure and straightforward mathematical logic, as appiled to our transport mode of choice.

Today, we often hear of airline-styled hub-and-spoke services as an approach worth emulating in the railway passenger field - especially when discussing tomorrow's systems; however, historically, it was quite unusual to see a hub-and-spoke operational pattern in the railroad world outside of local city streetcar lines and a handful of interurban roads.

Instead, common carriers perfected another routine which served (and could once again serve) the public much more efficiently, exploiting the train’s strong points and accepting its limitations. Rather than forcing customers to rely upon hub-and-spoke traffic configurations, long distance trains were run as part of a grid-type route matrix, interchanging passengers not only at their terminal points, but also at certain intermediate stations. The places where these interchange points were located became collectively known as "Gateway Cities". These gateways, from Cincinnati and Denver to Manly, Iowa and Effingham, Illinois, provided railroad travelers, many times by way of true "Union Station" facilities, the opportunity to transfer from one train - and one company - to another.

The railroad’s proven "grid-and-gateway" pattern is infinitely more logical for today’s passenger train operators to have as a guide. If long distance trains are to truly work as a viable means of public transport - and they can indeed do so - then a railroad-minded scheme must needs be applied to their operation, which demands the traditional Grid and Gateway approach!

In lieu of high-dollar, new-from-the-ground-up corridors designed to impersonate earth-bound airlines, railway passenger services of the next generation must be reliant upon existing infrastructure, remain operationally self-sufficient (or effectively so) and share guideway space with other (commuter/intermodal/freight) traffic. They need to be planned and executed in order to offer a viable alternative to the de-facto monopolies inherent in today’s travel world (due to the United States’s lack of an overriding energy/environmental/transportation policy).

It is also imperative that we embrace a multiple number of inter-corridor, long distance routes as an integral part of any railway system developed for the North American continent. That's the only possible way to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of transportation services.

For a "reasonable" (read: "minimal") financial commitment - tied to an esoteric understanding of railroad operations - a rebuilt, revitalized system of intercity passenger trains could once again exist; trains that would effectively serve a diverse passenger base with safe, comfortable, reliable, cost-effective transportation. The railway alternative, far from being outmoded and unnecessary, should be considered a foundational part of our total transportation network - a true 21st century solution to a contemporary need!

End of sermonette.

What I'd like to do, in an occasional series over the next couple of months, is delve into the Grid and Gateway concept and review a few of the reasons why it WOULD work - presuming our nation ever gets to the point where the reestablishment of a comprehensive network of efficient and saleable intercity passenger train services is an honest desire and not simply a campaign promise.

With your support, I will do so.

My wish list

Garl B. Latham — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:23:00 GMT

As we begin the 21st century's second decade and enter destinations unknown (tempus fugit, man!), I though it might be sobering to create a wish list of sorts: a compilation of, say, the top ten things I'd enjoy adding to our society's growing catalogue of concerns.

It's a depressing thought, but this piece could have just as easily been written ten years ago. Worse yet is the realisation that my list may end up being resurrected once again, ten years from now!

We, as a people, are nearing a junction point - one where we'll face an historic choice concerning our approach to domestic transportation (especially that of the passenger kind). We will be standing in the midst of Robert Frost's "yellow wood," wondering which road we should take.

In this case, "the one less traveled by" may be the one ultimately sustainable!

At any rate, we'll need to make a decision. Therefore, my first wish would be for the U.S. federal government to finally develop a comprehensive, national transportation/energy/environmental policy. I believe this is the most important wish of all. Through it, we'd be able to see where we are (and how we came to this point), then decide where we want to go and how we'd like to get there. The patented U.S. "drive or fly" approach was never logical, but it was supportable - at great cost - for more than three score years. We might even be able to go yet another 20...but, eventually, we will have reached our own "future." Then what will we do?!

Without such a policy in place, future-minded decisions will be far more difficult (if not impossible). That's especially true when considering transportation's relationship to our ecological health and the availability of affordable energy. It would be shameful, but I'd much rather us be honest and publicly state that we don't care about the environment and that we're ready to do anything for our next petroleum "fix" than to continue talking a good game, then doing absolutely nothing about it. My second wish would be for us to either take all of this seriously, or completely drop the pretence.

Along those same lines, I wish the feds would stop blindly throwing money at problems! Amtrak, bless it's pointed head, is a prime example of how NOT to operate a governmental bureaucracy. The N.R.P.C., essentially from day one, has received just enough cash to survive, but never enough to really accomplish anything - at least not on a national scale. "You can't get there from here" remains far more than a simple catch phrase, would-be riders are left behind for want of available space, and the company is so rudderless that it just sat back and allowed others to plan its future during the past two years - a time when the phrase "railroad renaissance" wasn't necessarily tinged with irony.

My fourth wish would be for us to more effectively utilise existing assets, such as extant general system trackage, when planning for increased passenger service. Such an approach will require conventional "mixed-use" operations along existing rights-of-way...which, in turn, presumes the full, uncoerced cooperation of the infrastructure owners (remember them?). If ever there was an opportunity for both sides of the table to win, this is it! Our industry will ultimately receive additional capacity at low cost and the public will get an option for traveling that's not only reasonable, safe and affordable, but fun! Increases in traffic congestion and gasoline prices will only serve to enhance the train's appeal.

I would like to see this system improvement be planned from a user's perspective, too. That means political realities wouldn't override the very real requirements of current and future freight operations on the one hand, or the literal needs (not just wants) of the railroad passenger on the other. For example, even if the political will to create a true U.S. high-speed railway network was already present, we'd still need our conventional passenger trains - transit and regional services, moderate-frequency corridors, long haul routes - to supplement and interconnect with H.S.R. I wish some of the otherwise supportive planners, dreamers and political soothsayers could see this!

I also wish we'd take the concept of intermodalism seriously. Surely, it's an impressive word; but, it's one with little meaning in the U.S. outside of the freight world. In fact, for most domestic travelers, the promise of seamless intermodalism has no basis in reality. We're actually living in a weird sort of autocentric multi-modal culture: a "system" (in name only) where one drives his private motor vehicle to an airfield, then leaves it behind - only to rent another automobile at his destination. Even the few train/'plane transfers which are currently available usually involve inconvenient shuttles, multiple connections and self-service baggage handling. There IS a better way!

I think my seventh wish is fairly simple: an absolute national moratorium on all future railroad abandonments! We shouldn't allow any more railway mileage to be lost or compromised. Oklahoma sets a good example (and it's not the only state to do so): if a common carrier wishes to cease operation over a given route, the taxpayer is given an opportunity to purchase those assets for the same amount of money the original company would have received by scrapping the line. The state becomes the proud new owner of that right-of-way and infrastructure - and immediately contracts operations to a private, for-profit concern. What few miles go without a bid are held, intact, for future use.

Next, I wish our elected officials (read: "leaders") would spend the taxpayer's money respectfully, planning and building as if public projects were private-sector endeavours. For instance, as we develop new-start rail transit systems (which are basically an attempt to restore the streetcar and interurban lines we foolishly allowed to die so many years ago), why are concrete crossties being used instead of wood (or some other material)? Why do we always see complex catenary overhead and pantographs on the cars rather than simple contact wire and trolley poles? I presume one reason is because capital for construction is easier to secure than ongoing cash for maintenance and operations. Still, there must be some way to lower the initial investment without sacrificing quality.

Wish number nine? That advocates on all levels remain constantly vigilant, prepared to inform, instruct, and thoughtfully answer critics. Naturally, the citizenry deserves factual information; yet, we can never take for granted they truly understand it. Ohio's scuttled 3C project and its infamous "39 m.p.h. speed" statistic should provide a poignant reminder as to the various ways some people will purposefully distort the truth in order to undermine the public's trust. The United States has gone far too long without a thriving passenger train system for most people to really grasp what they're now missing and what they could be enjoying - for a quite reasonable investment. Regrettably, without adequate public support, what just happened in places like Ohio and Wisconsin could become the norm.

Finally, we should never lose sight of the ultimate goal, nor forget what might happen if we fail. I understand many among us maintain the belief that things will never substantively change; that we'll always be able to exist, comfortably, as part of a "drive or fly" nation. This assumption may be true. It may also be an example of an extreme mental state called "normalcy bias": the idea that, since a given disaster (or, in this case, a potentially disastrous societal change) has never occurred, it will never occur. We have our automobiles, a system of roadways upon which to drive them, and the relatively inexpensive supply of fuel necessary to make them all work. What else could we need?

What else, indeed!

The North American continent could be standing on the brink of greatness. It could also effectively be perched on the verge of collapse.

Truly, the choice is ours.

It's a depressing thought, but this piece could have just as easily been written ten years ago. Worse yet is the realisation that my list may end up being resurrected once again, ten years from now!

In this case, "the one less traveled by" may be the one ultimately sustainable!

What else, indeed!

The North American continent could be standing on the brink of greatness. It could also effectively be perched on the verge of collapse.

Truly, the choice is ours.